Calculating the Isotope Ratio of Uranium 235 and 238 4.5 Billion Years Ago

  • Thread starter Thread starter skrat
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Isotopes Uranium
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the isotope ratio of Uranium-235 and Uranium-238 from 4.5 billion years ago, given their current proportions and half-lives. The user attempts to derive the ratio using exponential decay equations but encounters confusion regarding the results, particularly with the values of A and B. Key points include the independence of the isotopes' decay and the need to correctly apply the decay equations to find the historical ratio. The final conclusion suggests that A equals 3.30 times B, indicating a significant difference in the abundance of the isotopes in the past. Clarification on the next steps in the calculation process is sought to resolve the confusion.
skrat
Messages
740
Reaction score
8

Homework Statement


Current share of Uranium isotope on Earth is 99.28% (##^{238}U##) and 0.72% (##^{235}U##), half-life times are ##7.04\cdot 10^8 years## (##^{235}U##) and ##4.468\cdot 10^9 years## (##^{238}U##). Calculate the ratio between the isotopes ##4.5\cdot 10^9 years## ago.


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



If hope it is ok to say that ##N(t)=N_0e^{-\frac{t}{\tau }}##.

Let's now say that ##N_{238}(t)=Ae^{-\frac{t}{\lambda }}## where ##\lambda =\frac{t_{1/2}^{238}}{ln2}## and
##N_{235}(t)=Be^{-\frac{t}{\mu }}## where ##\mu =\frac{t_{1/2}^{235}}{ln2}##.

Now we know that ##\frac{N_{238}(t)}{N_{238}(t)+N_{235}(t)}=0.9928## and also ##\frac{N_{235}(t)}{N_{238}(t)+N_{235}(t)}=0.0072##

Knowing this, I can write:

##\frac{N_{238}(t)}{N_{238}(t)+N_{235}(t)}=\frac{Ae^{-\frac{t}{\lambda }}}{Ae^{-\frac{t}{\lambda }}+Be^{-\frac{t}{\mu }}}=0.9928## and

##\frac{Be^{-\frac{t}{\mu }}}{Ae^{-\frac{t}{\lambda }}+Be^{-\frac{t}{\mu }}}=0.0072##

Dividing last two gives me:

##\frac{Ae^{-\frac{t}{\lambda }}}{Be^{-\frac{t}{\mu }}}=\frac{0.9928}{0.0072}## and

##A=Be^{-t/\mu +t/\lambda }\frac{0.9928}{0.0072}##

Inserting this into ##\frac{Be^{-\frac{t}{\mu }}}{Ae^{-\frac{t}{\lambda }}+Be^{-\frac{t}{\mu }}}=0.0072## leaves me with the result that ##B=1##.

Knowing this also gives me a result for ##A##, therefore ##A=459.8##.

So... If I am not mistaken, than following ratios should be the result I am searching:

##\frac{B}{B+A}=0.9978## for Uranium 235 and ##\frac{A}{B+A}=0.0022## for Uranium 238.

Which to me is a bit confusing, so I would kindly ask somebody to tell me where I got it all wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Inserting this into ##\frac{Be^{-\frac{t}{\mu }}}{Ae^{-\frac{t}{\lambda }}+Be^{-\frac{t}{\mu }}}=0.0072## leaves me with the result that ##B=1##
Is not correct. It leaves you with the result that 0.0072 = 0.0072, which is not extremely useful.

B = 1 is a strange answer anyway, right ?
And: you should become suspicious when your answer stipulates that the fastest decaying isotope was less abundant in the past than the other one!

And now for some more constructive stuff:
First you want to check that 238U doesn't decay into 235U, which it doesn't.
So both can be considered independent.

You have expressions for the current ratio N238 / N235.
With ##N(t)=N_0e^{-\frac{t}{\tau }}## you also have expressions for ##N(t)/N_0## for both.
All you have to do is fill in the numbers !
 
BvU said:
You have expressions for the current ratio N238 / N235.
With ##N(t)=N_0e^{-\frac{t}{\tau }}## you also have expressions for ##N(t)/N_0## for both.
All you have to do is fill in the numbers !

Fill in the numbers into what? O.o

All I have is ##\frac{N_{238}(t)}{N_{238}(t)+N_{235}(t)}=0.9928## and ##\frac{N_{235}(t)}{N_{238}(t)+N_{235}(t)}=0.0072##, of course dividing those two brings me to current ratio, just like you said but... ?

I don't get it what the next step is supposed to be..
 
You reached the equation
##A=Be^{-t/\mu +t/\lambda }\frac{0.9928}{0.0072}##
which is correct. You should now plug in the known values for t, λ, and μ. and solve for A/B.
 
Ok...

##A=3.30B##.
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top